How the 2000s changed tactics #3: The decline of the three-man defence
The Reds' three-man defence works well against the Blues' 4-4-2, giving a spare man at the back, and a spare man in an attacking midfield role
It’s a shame that the three-man defence has become so unfashionable in recent years, because tactically it’s a lot more interesting and varied than a four-man defence. It essentially did the same job – with one fewer player, allowing the side to dominate the midfield with an extra man.
Generally, the three-man defence worked very well against a 4-4-2. In terms of man-marking, a three-man defence would utilise two-man markers with a sweeper as the spare man. Zonally, the three-man defence would shift across the pitch according to what side the ball was on. The right-sided centre-half would have to be comfortable coming to the right-back position, leaving two centre-backs in the area, leaving the central player covering the near post, and the left-sided player the far post. And vice-versa. Sides playing three-man defences were admittedly prone to sides intent on shifting the ball quickly from one wing to another, but as long as it used wing-backs capable of tracking the opposition wide midfielders, it generally worked well – and still left an extra midfielder.
The problem with a three-man defence is that it rarely works well against anything other than two strikers. Against one striker, you’re left with 3 v 1 at the back – fine defensively, but clearly leaving a shortfall somewhere else in the side. Against three forwards (one central and two side), there is no natural solution in terms of marking. If your wing-backs (in a 3-4-1-2) pick up the opposition wingers (in a 4-3-3) you’re left with same problem, being overmanned at the back. If your centre-backs are given the task of picking up the wingers, either they’re dragged dangerously wide, or they’re allowing the wingers the time and space they desire.
Here, however, when the three-man defence faces a 4-3-3, the Red's three-man defence is overstocked against the lone striker. If the Reds' wing-backs mark the Blues' wingers, then they are left with no attacking width and will see little posssession. If the job is left to the centre-backs, the defence falls apart.
Furthermore, the increased emphasis upon (a) movement (b) pace and (c) versatile attacking players in the modern game means it’s simply too easy for a three-man defence to be dragged out of shape. A 3-5-2 or 3-4-1-2 also left opposition full-backs free – not useful with the advent of attacking full-backs, although this was a less of a problem with a 3-4-3.
In the Premiership, there was a strange mid-late 90s obsession with three-man defences, where the majority of teams in played this way. Even the famous Arsenal backline was playing a three when Arsene Wenger took over – although he shifted them back to four when he won the title in his first full season. The craze may partly have come because of the German Euro 96 side which brilliantly played a 3-4-1-2, with an attacking sweeper in Matthias Sammer and defensive-minded, energetic wing-backs – although it also helped that almost every Premiership side played two upfront, making three at the back a useful default system.
Today, not one Premiership side has used three at the back regularly this season. Too many sides play either three- or one-man strikeforces, and whilst three at the back perhaps remains the optimum system against a 4-4-2, it’s inconvenient to be switching between four and three between games. In Serie A the three-man defence is refreshingly the system of choice for Genoa, Napoli and (sometimes) Palermo – but all have players and managers capable of shifting from a 3-4-1-2 to a 4-3-1-2 when necessary, something Premiership teams have rarely had the ability to do.
Interestingly, the only two sides on ZM’s “Teams of the Decade” feature that used a back three are also the two oldest teams on the list, the Roma side of 2000/01 and the Brazil side of 2002.
Internationally, four at the back remains the defence of choice for all major European nations, and indeed every major contender for this World Cup. Chile is a notable exception, where Marcelo Bielsa fields an exciting 3-3-1-3 shape, and it will be interesting to see how opponents fare against the rare challenge of trying to break down a three-man defence.
Egypt have stuck to a 3-4-1-2 under Hassan Shehata and have won the last three Africa Nations Cups as a result, against sides from a continent still fixated on 4-4-2, but they’ve faced the usual problems against other systems. They won’t be at the World Cup because they lost in the play-off to (on paper) a much weaker Algeria side, which matched their 3-4-1-2. Considering how badly England played for much of the recent friendly at home to Egypt, it will be interesting to see if they face the same problems against the similarly-laid out Algeria side in South Africa, or if they’ve learnt their lessons.
The three-man defence is a real thing of beauty when fielded correctly. Serie A has been fascinating because of the aforementioned three sides’ tendency to play three-man defences, and tactical obsessives regardless of nationality should be backing Chile this summer, hoping success for Bielsa will trigger copycat formations across the world.
How the 2000s changed tactics #3: The decline of the three-man defence
Genoa are a team who play 3 at the back who have had relatively good success in recent years, so it is not quite dead yet!
Indeed, as the sixth paragraph says. Hence ‘decline’, not ‘death’.
Sorry I must have missed that
I’m a big fan of the 3-man defense as a tactical alternative. I agree with you that the use of 1 and 3-man front lines cause some havoc, but I think it’s just a matter of time before a tactical coach finds a way to turn it to his advantage. Hopefully Bielsa is the one and we all get to witness something great at the WC.
When Man Utd visited Fulham just before Christmas, they played a 3 man back line. Admittedly it was a poor back line, but, they were dragged out of place by Fulham’s narrow 4-4-1-1. With Duff & Dempsey on “wrong” wings (Left footed Duff on the right, and vice versa with right footed Dempsey), it was giving space for the attacking Pantsil & Konchesky at full backs. Utd’s wing backs were caught between marking the wingers cutting inside, or the full backs hugging the touchline, & as a team, they were punished. Duff, Dempsey, & Gera (playing just off Zamora) were forming a 4-2-3-1 between Utd’s defence & midfield. This gave them the space and time to take the game to Utd, and bring in a convincing 3-0 victory. I think it is about time sides gave up on 3 man back lines.
The problem with making a statement such as “it’s simply too easy for a three-man defence to be dragged out of shape” belies the fact that the ball can only be in one location at any one time. Thus, with a true zonal back three, let’s say the ball moves from the blue defensive mid to the blue left winger. As the ball is traveling, the red back three shifts over to the pressure the blue left winger as he receives the ball, following traditional zonal principles of pressure/cover/balance. Additionally, the far-side red wingback can also drop in to cover the backpost area, giving a nominal back four at any moment that the ball is on the opposite wing. Therefore, to say that a back three can be pulled out of shape easily is not necessarily correct (although the coach/team that plays with a sweeper and two marking backs is asking for trouble). Zonal defending is a great friend to any 3-back system. Team defensive mobility is the same. The three qualities mentioned for attacking play in the article – movement, pace and versatility – are three qualities that can benefit a back three system enormously.
But is the three-man defence not prone to quick, cross-field balls (or a couple of short passes from one flank to another?
Quick cross-field passes (or short passes from one flank to another) are dangers for any formation. The key is to look at the principles of defense – Pressure, Cover, Balance, Consolidation, Depth. If the nearest defender to the ball (pressure) is doing their job, then long cross-field passes are a) not a danger because they probably won’t happen, and b) not a danger because even if they DO happen, the back three can shift across as fast as the ball travels (remember, the far side defender will have 10-15 yards to move while the ball will have 45-60 yards to travel). Formations are not beaten because of the numbers, but in the space and the time and the principles of attack and defense. When one principle of defense breaks down, then the team is at risk of conceding, whether they have 1, 3, 4 or 8 at the back.
I think the only way to stop a 3 man back line being caught out like this, is to play with defensive wing backs, and being a back 5, rather than a back 3.
Maybe you could analyze the 3-3-1-3 VS 4-3-3
I think with 3 upfront the 2 wide players proivde the width & more importantly occupy the opposition full backs pinning them back, leaving 3 Vs 3 in the midfield & 3 Vs 3 in the back
meaning the free player is the playmaker which is really the one player that you would want to be free
My question is how do the midfield 3 operate in Bielsa’s Chile? I have not seen them play yet but is it a case of a holding midfielder & 2 wing backs or a holding midfielder & 2 carilleros
I must admit, I haven’t seen a full game of Chile recently so I can’t comment properly. A chap called Roberticus has made a couple of brilliant comments about Chile recently, he’s the authority here!
Hi ZM and Kj,
not too sure what qualifies me to be an ‘authority’ on matters Bielsa, but I’m certainly a long-term admirer of his philosophy and of his teams’ pro-active approach (who could fail to admire his barnstorming Argentina side from 98-2002 before they crashed out at the WC?). I’ve tried to keep as close an eye as possible on Chile’s World Cup qualification games, their players’ individual fortunes at club level both domestic and abroad, and also followed the debates in the Chilean media.
It would be great if we could get some Chilean-based reader on here to give us a more forensic insight.
In terms of how that midfield shapes up; it is generally laid out as a diamond and is never flat, which means that the wide-of-centre players do not necessarily have to be wide-midfielders or wing-backs, though some indeed are. Overall, I think Bielsa likes to have a mix and so, beside the obvious presence of a holding player (either Gary Medel of Boca Juniors or Pedro Carmona), it is common to see a wing-back/wide-midfielder on one side whilst a more well-rounded midfield player can take the other flank. The idea here being that the playmaking duties will not be the exclusive preserve of the No.10 (Mati Fernandez or Carlos Valdivia)lest that guy’s creativity be stifled by close-marking. So the wide players can indeed push out to support the outside-forwards and of course to assist the full-backs (or centre-backs in the ‘3′?)when the opponent is raiding down that particular flank. Another result of having that diamond is that the wide-mids do not have to overlap the wingers, but instead can surge diagonally through the middle to latch on to second balls- so in this sense they are like box-to-box midifelders. It’s a bit reminiscent of how Chelsea occassionally played earlier in the season with their diamond being disjointed whenever Malouda would veer left and Ballack (or Essien) would stay tucked in on the other side.
Bielsa has said that “there is no excuse for why any player and in any position should be standing still at anytime during any phase of play” which goes to indicate his preference for a high-tempo style; kinda like mid-90’s Ajax on steroids. And while you’d imagine this applies to all his players, even the more creative ones, it is entirely possible that those wide-midfielders are the hardest-worked on the team.
Roberticus – posts like that are why you can be considered an authoritative source! Great stuff – even if you haven’t seen all their games you describe their shape really clearly, I’m quite excited to see them at the World Cup.
I cannot wait to see how Chile do in the world cup. They have a re-arranged friendly against Venezuela coming up and this may give us a taster of what is to come.
In Serie A, Lazio have started deploying a 3-5-2 under Reja now. I’m not sure it’s working though.
In reply to MCGIE76, I don’t think using a zonal back 3 is the answer. If you’re playing against a side with front 3 they will rip you apart if the wing backs are expected to cover the far post areas. It will leave an enormous amount of space in their normal position and you will lose your man advantage in midfield.
I believe Bielsa’s Chile works by using the wider players in the midfield 3 to create triangles for the the right and left centre backs to play out with. I have yet to see it though so can only relay what I have read.
I think 3v3 at the back is definitely a danger, Rocco. However, that is only if you see formations as static entities. If, for example, my team plays a 3-5-2 against a 4-3-3, I can easily instruct my left wingback, say, to play more defensive. This will, nominally, give me a back 4, but the formation will still be 3-5-2 for all intents and purposes. Thus, the 3 attackers on the other team are now faced with 4 defenders. We will still have a man advantage in midfield, and even if the other team send a fullback forward, it will be even numbers in midfield. However, if they send BOTH fullbacks forward, then the man advantage in midfield is gone. However, now it’s 2v2 for us up front, and we still have a man over in defense. So the answers to the questions is not in numbers or formation versus formation. Rather, the answers are in the adjustments, how the space is protected and used, and how players keep shape in relation to the movements of their own team and the team they are playing.
I do enjoy the 3 man defence, but it needs to be highly flexible, especially in relation to the cover from the anchor man. In the 90’s, van Gaal’s Ajax used it effectively with a defence of 3 men, where one would be the sweeper (Blind) and two other the centre-backs (Reiziger and Frank de Boer), but with the important notion that these two would also cover as full backs.
The system worked because of the tactical intelligence of Frank Rijkaard, who would become effectively another centre-back when needed and would allow the other centre backs to cover the flanks. Since the rest of the midfield included two very versatile players (Davids and Seedorf) who could adequately defend and attack, this would be possible. On the other hand, Ajax fielded extremely attack-minded and fast wingers (Finidi and Overmars) who kept the opposition full-backs occupied and then had a striker (Kanu or Kluivert) who’s main function was to hold the ball for the surges from the “trequartista” Litmanen from the back.
van der Saar
Blind
Reiziger F. de Boer
Rijkaard
Seedorf Davids
Finidi Overmars
Litmanen
Kanu
It was indeed a beauty to behold. Especially because of the great versatility of the players (F. de Boer was left back and centre back, just like Bogarde; Reiziger the same on the right; Rijkaard was anchor man and centre back, Davids and Seedorf were box-tobox midfielders and inside midfielders capable of destrying and building plays; Litmanen could organize and finish; R. de Boer was winger, trequartista or striker; etc…). The system was good essentially because the players were used to it (they had all grown in the Ajax academy, which used the same system in the youth ranks) and therefore accepted it’s demands. But it also proved that it did not demand fantastic players everywhere (Blind was at the end of the career, Rijkaard the same, Kanu, Finidi, Litmanen and Kluivert never reached the levels somewhere else that they had promised).
In any case, if today I imagine that a 3 man defence would need a simple tweak: the two men upfront would be wingers capable of moving inside. Imagine, for example, Ronaldo on the left and Messi on the right and you get an idea. They keep the wing backs in check (while challenging their weaker foot), drag the centre backs out of position to cover for the wing backs and can easily link up with an attacking midfielder or trequartista coming in from the back. This only works of course, if the midfield presents a strong anchor-man capable of dropping deep to cover as centre back (in case the centre backs cover for the wing/full-backs) or to cover the surges forward of the wing-backs (when they overlap with the wingers/strikers). Like below:
Keeper
Sweeper
CB1 CB2
WB1 Anchor WB2
MF1 MF2
Trequartista
WG/ST1 WG/ST2
Of course ther would always be ways of dealing with this, but it’s just an idea. Any comments?
Sorry, the formations did not come as I wanted. I’ll redraw them.
Ajax:
—————van der Saar—————
——————Blind——————-
———-Reiziger—–F. de Boer———
—————–Rijkaard—————–
———–Seedorf——Davids————
—Finidi———————-Overmars—
—————–Litmanen—————–
——————-Kanu——————-
My proposal of 3 man defence:
——————Keeper——————
—————–Sweeper——————
——-CB1——————–CB2———
–WB1————-Anchor————-WB2–
————–MF1——–MF2————–
—————Trequartista—————
–WB/ST1————————–WB/ST2–
Interesting… A three man defense would be nigh unstoppable if it allowed you to play 12 men.
Perhaps you could replace MF1 and MF2 with one player.
true. my mistake, maybe i should go back to primary scholl :S
school
If the problem with this system is that it leaves the opposition full backs free in an attacking sense, thereby creating a 2-on-1 for your wing back, then this applies even more when playing against a 4-4-2 because the two attackers can drag the centre backs away better than one attacker can.
But if you’re a 3-4-1-2 playing a 4-4-2, an overload on one flank can be dealt with by the centre-back on that side moving into the full-back position, making it 2v2 on the flank. Then the other two centre-backs can cover the centre of the pitch, and (if needed) the wing-back on the opposite side can cover the far post, and track the relevant winger.
This admittedly doesn’t work when both opposition full-backs get forward at the same time – but that is quite risky since they would be potentially leaving 2 v 3 at the back.
Excellent article. A great example of the rise and fall of the 3-5-2 is Martin O’Neill’s Celtic team. He moved to a 3-5-2 when he arrived at Celtic in 2000 and went on to dominate Scottish football for a few seasons (most other teams played a basic 4-4-2). It was arguably Alex McLeish introducing a 4-3-3 at Rangers which prompted O’Neill to move to 4-4-2 after McLeish’s team started to get the better of Celtic.
It could also be argued that Celtic’s 3-5-2 was changed due to probelms caused by more tactically astsute European teams (i.e. Mourhino’s Porto in the 2003 Uefa Cup final).
Exactly what I was going to say Lubo! Two things stand out in this:
1. Porto played a front 3 against Celtic in the CL (2001? Pre-Mourinho…) and murdered Celtic’s back 3. On their right, the attacker (Capucho?) murdered the lumbering Valgaeren AND nullified Alan Thompson by forcing him to defend deep.
2. Rangers (early 02?) played Peter Lovenkrands high up on the left, forcing Mjallby or Balde across to meet him – not only did this leave space to exploit in the middle, he did them for pace every time and had swathes of green to run into.
The key really has to be the fact that very few centrebacks are comfortable defending in wide positions (F deBoer, yes, Joos Valgaeren, no…).
It was in 2003. The right winger was Capucho, but due to an injury to Postiga (I think) Capucho played a target man role for other players.
Were it not for a fantastic match from Henrik Larsson and Celtic would never have reached the extra-time and the result would have been considerably different from the final 3-2.
Joao I’m thinking of the earlier Champions league tie (2001-02 I think) where Porto beat Celtic 3-0 in Oporto.
The game you refer to is the Uefa Cup final of 2003 (Celtic had by then moved to a back 4) and I remember it very differently from you!
In that 2003 final I would prefer to think that were it not for some outstanding displays of showmanship from the Portegeuse, then Celtic would’ve won comfortably.
I stand correct then. I got it wrong, maybe because I didn’t know much about Celtic before that.
Bielsa used the 3-3-1-3 formation with Argentina at the 2002 WC. The formation was very successfull in qualifying but were blocked out at the World Cup. Interestingly their failure was not due to a lack of penetration but rather due to that penetration being limited to the flanks. Time and again teams like Sweden and England allowed the 2 wingers in Ortega and Claudio Lopez supported by Zanetti and Sorin to get to the byline but would block out their crosses by crowding the penalty area. (Note: The lone striker Batistuta was isolated in the centre)
In contrast a lot of other South American teams which had adopted the back 3 used the flanks only to spread play and attacked largely through the centre.
The success of the formation depends on the players available. If a team had players like Sorin and Zanetti available to play wide in midfield (or Cocu and R. de Boer who played that position at Barça under Van Gaal), I am sure they would be tempted to use the 3-3-1-3. The versatility of these players who made such valuable contributions in defence and attack was what allowed the formation to be a success.
I hope one day you will do an article on such players. They were quite different from the traditional wingback in that they had skill in possession and the vision in passing required from midfielders while wingbacks are rarely required to have anything more than speed and crossing ability (to add to their defensive skills).
Hey Kamikaze,
that’s true about Argentina during 2002 but only partially. Tim Vickery has suggested that in all probability, what made Argentina look so jaded in that group phase was the fact that the monsoon season caused the tournament to be played two weeks earlier than usual and so Bielsa’s Europe-based players didn’t have sufficient time to recharge their batteries and carry out their high-octane pressing game that his system demanded. That would explain why they looked so anaemic throughout those three games. Of course, the ownice was still on Bielsa to come up with a Plan B, and maybe a more traditionally Argentinian patient-passing game would have come in handy, but the guy was bloody-minded, much like his idol Van Gaal. That being said, it is true that he has adopted a more flexible approach as if having learned from his mistakes. Chile sometimes switch from 3-3-1-3 to either a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-1-3. But Bielsa has suggested that the main adjustments he makes in a match are in the back-line in accordance with how many forwards his opponents field: against two strikers, he plays three defenders; versus three forwards he plays a back four and against teams who have only one striker but no wingers he simply asks the wing-backs in his back four to bomb on.
Roberticus
Glad to find a fan of Bielsa.
As for fatigue affecting Argentina’s performance that could be said of just about all the teams and it was Brazil who won the cup that year.
I was actually going to suggest that what that formation lacked was an extra midfielder bombing into the box but I just remembered that Sorin actually used to do that although only to a limited extent. I think the problem was not in defence but a lack of flexibility in attack. By this I mean, the tactical structure was too rigidly adhered to with little variation or dynamism encouraged. Players never broke the pattern of their movement or changed the focus of their attack.
As for the present and Chile, if Bielsa’s formation changes so significantly for each game he must have a reasonably good bunch of players who are capable of adapting to different positions. I think I will watch Chile with some interest this time around.
Hi kamikaze,
I’m from Chile and I’m very impressed with Bielsa’s work. We’re happy to qualify to the worldcup with such a proactive game and we hope to do a good presentation. I think this is a unique moment for chilean soccer/football, so I must admit that I’m kind of eager to see them perform in SouthAfrica as much as my fellows.
As you said, the formation changes so quickly and so significantly because there are a lot of players that can play 2 or even 3 positions in that scheme.
Bielsa rarely uses pure-defenders on the back line. He mostly uses defensive midfielders on that position for 2 reasons: They are quick on covering defensive positions and because they can pass the ball better throw the rival attackers and to asume advanced positions. Most notably players doing this are Gary Medel, Arturo Vidal and Marco Estrada.
As Roberticus said before, this schema changes depending on the formation from the rival. If the rival is playing with 3 attackers, Chile plays with 4 in the back. If they play with one attacker, there is only need for 2 defenses. Though, Bielsa doesn’t move for any reason the 3 attackers nor the attacking midfielder (Matias Fernandez or Jorge Valdivia) in front. They are focused to start the defensive pressure at the begining of the rivals attack.
Let me go further… When the rival start their attack from their very own GK, Humberto Suazo (the center forward) charges the defender to one side, so the defensive player is pressed for one of the wingers (Alexis Sanchez or Mark González) and then is helped by the attacking or the deffensive midfielder. If the ball pass from this pressure, then the wide midfielders and the defensive one goes to charge. If the ball pass throw them, one of the deffensive line is on it and one of the wingers come down to help. So the attackers has to do a lot of effort going down a lot of times to recover the ball and the deffensive midfielder has to be on every place to help everyone else. Lots of efforts from everyone… Very physically minded people needed.
I like the 3 guys on back… but the most notably part of this formation is the 3 in front. They are the most sacrified at this schema
ZM – what of Barca’s ‘back 3′ the other week, when Pique stepped up into midfield? As Jonathan Wilson has pointed out, with the rise of systems playing 1 (or 0) centreforwards, it seems likely that the next ’spare man’ – and hence area of innovation – could be the second centre-back in a 442.
One potential use is to play the “extra” centreback as a “sweeper” in front of the defence. This leaves a “back 3″, but unlike the 90s version of 3 centre backs, it would be 1cb and 2 fullbacks. In fact, this is not unlike the Ajax system of the 90s which Joao Andre highlights above – almost a diamond with one advanced centre back.
Which game are you referring to there, Naka, with Pique coming into the midfield?
But it’s an interesting point, one I’m going to touch on (hopefully) next week, about how the future might see four-man defences becoming three-man defences with a holding player dropping in. I’ve got a draft article ready to go, but going to get through this series first.
I was thinking of Busquets dropping back (eg v Stuttgart?) – my bad!
There is an interesting video on the Uefa Training Ground site where Roy Hodgson is talking about the 3-5-2 England used at Euro 96 with Paul Ince dropping in as a CB in defensive phases. This was essentially a LB-CB-RB at the back as well.
http://en.archive.uefa.com/trainingground/index.html#34002/428/519239
Interesting Rocco – was it Neville and Pearce as the wide defenders?
I posted on Martin O’Neill’s Celtic above and interestingly he used Lennon and Lambert in midfield to supplement the defence, allowing the wingbacks to push up. As neither player had much height (and O’Neill likes big centerbacks) they shuttled wide to cover the fullback areas, rather than covering the middle of defence. Ultimately though this was still vulnerable to a 4-3-3 as it could leave them undermanned in the centre of the pitch.
I think with Martin O’Neill’s 3-5-2 is that when on the defence, Alan Thompson would sit so deep that it wasn’t too hard for him to slot into left-back, where as Agathe had such electrifiying pace and stamina, that much like the S.American wing-backs, he could pretty much cover the right-back area at most times.
On the occaisions that a wing-back was caught off guard, the nearest CB would shuttle out into the full-back area (usually making a meaty challenge – see Balde on Del Piero) leaving 2 centre-backs in the traditional 2 centre back positions. So yes still vulnerable to wing-forwards, but Thompson and Agathe generally weren’t caught out..
Not in the SPL, but the CL was a different prospect…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Christian Leo, FM Pundit@Pesamurai , Rocco, Rocco, Zonal Marking and others. Zonal Marking said: NEW ON ZM: The decline of the three-man defence http://bit.ly/dleKW1 Come in and debate the merits of the good old three at the back [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zonal_Marking: NEW ON ZM: The decline of the three-man defence http://bit.ly/dleKW1...
Barça sometimes go with 3 in the back. Busquets drops back, Pique and Puyol push wide while Alves and maxwell push up and become attacking wingers
Great article, although I’m not a big fan of 3 defenders. Put a terrific forward against them, (like Rooney) and their defense would be opened easily.
I think by using 3 defenders, means adding personnel into the midfield. That means that team HAD TO dominating the midfield, play patient passes and opening the opponent’s defense. It can be both attacking minded formation (by dominating midfield like I said before) or defensive formation (by taking their wing backs became a defensive side back, forming a 5 defender formation). In a defensive formation, counter attack would be really handy.
I think that 3 defender formation is best suited for underdogs teams, as it is more simple to apply and has a high flexibility to became attack minded or defensive minded formation. But it also can be destroyed if the midfield that supposed to be controlling the game are outmatched or outplayed by the opponent’s midfield OR their defense are teared apart by the opponent’s forward. Quality defending and communication are really needed here… Playing sweeper behind the two centre backs is a better solution for this, as the sweeper has to be the last man, who controlled the defense and can start attacking from here.
NB: It would be interesting to see a sweeper who can playmaking from the back line in this era.
What I found interesting about O’Neill’s original version of 3-5-2 at Celtic was that the wide players in the midfield were deep lying wingers rather than wingbacks..something Kevin Keegan also tried at Newcastle and similar to England at Euro 96. Lambert and Lennon sat deep in midfield and gave cover to the defence or when required could drop back to make a back 4. It was inflexible, however, because of the personnel he used in the back 3…stoppers who were uncomfotable in areas other than central defence.
Joao Andre’s system has merit to me also. There has been a lot of talk about false 9s of late but it isn’t a new tactic….sides played this way in the 70’s. Indeed I remember reading Dave Sexton talking about a match, when managing QPR, in which his defence couldn’t cope with Dutch opponents playing their front 2 wide and no-one playing upfront as an orthodox CF. The central attacking area was filled with players breaking from midfield.
The team I player/managed in the 80s and 90s, albeit Sunday league level, often played 4-3-1-2 with false 9 and two wide forwards.
We also regularly played 3-4-3 against a British style 4-4-2. However, it was with one fullback moving in beside the centreback with a sweeper behind, the other pushing forward into midfield and the side midfielder on the other side covering that flank. This provides the flexibilty of switching between a back 3 or 4 as required, rather than being constrained by having 3 central defenders and 2 wingbacks. By playing 3 in attack we prevented the opposing fullbacks pushing forward and creating a 2 v 1 situation on our flanks.
The use of lone attackers and greater movement of players has limited the value of a back 3 but if a team can be seen to be successful with a modern variant of it I suspect it may return, albeit in a different format from the old one so popular in the 80s and 90s.
Another great article. Without wanting to blow too much smoke up your bottom, I suspect that it’s only a matter of time before a newspaper notices this website and gives you a chance to reach a wider audience. I’ll certainly do my best to alert them to your presence, weak and feeble though my influence in these matters is.
However, I think England’s difficulties were less to do with the Egyptian back three and more to do with their own incompetence. Steven Gerrard went AWOL again, scampering off up front, leaving Leighton Baines to fend for himself against two widemen. I love Gerrard, but you really can’t give the man instructions, he just ignores them and plays whereever he wants, usually in that number 10 role. Anyway, Egypt loved all that extra space on the flank and kept us pinned back and under pressure. With Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson rampaging forwards and, providing that someone with a smidgen of civic responsiblity helps out with defensive duties, I really think Capello’s team would rip them a new arse.
Thanks for the compliments.
Perhaps it wasn’t so much with a back three but with the 3-5-2ish shape as a whole. In fact it was more of a 3-4-1-2, and then with one striker dropping deep, so becoming something approaching a 3-4-2-1. And I think England struggled no necessarily with the three-man defence, but because Egypt had packed the midfield, weren’t weak on the flanks and yet still had two forwards. For Egypt to come to Wembley and have more possession in the first half is pretty odd.
The Premiership is so boring tactically that most players in the side won’t be used to playing against anything other than a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1, and I do think that a slightly less conventional shape could cause problems for the players – although you would assume Capello will be wise enough to outmanoeuvre his opponents…just a case of how well the players respond to his instructions, I suppose.
Yes, absolutely. With England, keeping things simple is of paramount importance. Some of the players are so stupid that you know it’s only a matter of time before they get frustrated and start lumping it long. I despair sometimes, I really do.
Hi Zm,
In Brazil 3 at the back is still not dead at all, though it had a kind of heyday in between 2005-8 when most big teams were doing it – inspired initially by Scolari’s 2002 side but also by São Paulo’s victories in the 2005 Libertadores and 2006-8 Leagues – and now it is fading again. Although it has to be said these two teams played very differently – Scolari using the strong foundation to “unleash hell” with his front 3, and SPFC doing a lot of route one football and long balls.
In hindsight so many teams were doing it for (a) an abundance of strong, fast, ball-playing full backs that could track back and bomb forward equally effectively (Cicinho, Leo Moura, Kleber, etc) and (b) a general dearth of wingers, even more acute than in Europe I’d say – notice that the 2006 WC squad had none.
Since last year though 4-2-3-1 is on the rise, like in Ronaldo’s Corinthians and Neymar’s Santos – taking out the incentive to play 3 at the back as you describe so vividly. Although there have been some experiments, such as Jorge Fossati earlier this year trying a 3-6-1 at Internacional (down the road from Roberticus, in Porto Alegre). His was a mostly unsuccessful experiment and he is already trying to put together a 4-man defence.
Incidentally, Fossati will probably do just fine – Internacional have, in my opinion, the strongest squad of all Libertadores this year.
Hi Pedro,
yeah, I think Inter should allow Fossati space to work his ideas. His critics are focusing too much attention on his changes of formation and missing the principal point: Fossati is trying to change the way a Brazilian team plays in terms of tempo, zonal marking etc. He wants them to pressure high up the pitch and for there not to be lagoons of space between all the sectors. Call it a more ‘European’ approach, if you will, but it is also a strategy used by teams from Ecuador and Paraguay (and even some teams from Argentina and Uruguay)who now see it as the only way to compete in Libertadores against the financial dominance of the Brazilian clubs who are attracting all the best talent in the continent.
Hi Roberticus,
The criticism I hear about Fossati is: why a squad with so many gifted attacking midfielders (Giuliano, D’Alessandro, Andrezinho, even Thiago Humberto and Walter) are playing in such a “limited” way, with one of them at a time and not using one-twos and passes through the middle. At least that’s what my father-in-law and brother-in-law (both “socio-torcedores”, season-ticket holders) are saying. The expectations were high for flair, but it is not there, and to make matters worse the results are not there either (especially in Campeonato Gaúcho), so no one’s patient with the tinkering.
I still rate Fossati, but with such vocal supporters and media as in Porto Alegre I am not sure he hangs to his job for long. Surely an elimination from the Libertadores will be the last straw when (or if) it comes. But definitely he’s much more interesting than Silas at Gremio (“we don’t have preferred tactics. It depends on the adversary, even against Ypiranga…”)
Incidentally, since the topic is 3 at the back, who do you think did it best in South America in the past decade? São Paulo surely was the most effective, but oh my it was boring to watch… also SPFC kind of “got addicted” to it, and only now seem to be finding a way to play 4-4-2 again. Once Caldas in 2004 also did it, no?
The main problem with a 3-5-2 is that a team with attacking fullbacks, even in a 4-4-2, will destroy you. If they can seize the initiative they will constantly hit the wings and have an overload. Think how Neville and Valencia or Evra and Nani would destroy a team down the flanks.
“Think how Neville and Valencia or Evra and Nani would destroy a team down the flanks.”
Thinking about how anyone could destroy a team on the flanks with Neville as his overlapping fullback made me chuckle…
its very refreshing that you are aware of tactical differences that exist in the serie as an english person to begin with.
i disagree with you though as to the 3 man being somehow inept against anything more than a two man attack. napoli for example instead of playing with a flat four in midfield use one deep-lying defensive mid, and another transitional, with no attacking mid…so that the 2 mid fielders actually cover immensely. a good example was napoli vs inter in 2010, when the nullified the three man inter attack
idk why i said inter.i was thinking Milan
Hur hur hur! No, not these ones!
No, these are the ones you get if you say that Gerrard is anything else other than Hercules reborn, carved from steel by the Gods themselves and sent down from Mount Olympus to ‘grab a game by the scruff of the neck’. They tend to be written entirely in capitals and are full of graphic descriptions of what will happen the next time you visit their neighbourhood. The same thing used to happen if you suggested that Ronaldo was a bit light on his feet as well….
Chievo played with two wingers in the first season in Serie A earlier in the decade, and finished 5th (I think) despite a fairly weak looking group of players- certainly their two main stars, Manfredini and Luciano, didn’t go on to greater things despite moves to Lazio and Inter respectively.
Perhaps the reason for Chievo’s achievement rests on the majority of Serie A at the time playing with three at the back?
We’ll never know.
Napoli are currently beating Juve 3-1 with 3 at the back. I think they’re playing a modified 3-4-3 though, not a 3-5-2
What a discussion! Overwhelmed but enlightened as usual
I think a lot more teams end up playing three at the back than people appreciate. Surely a team with attacking full backs and a defensive midfielder just end up playing with 3 at the back. For example, Barca (Puyol, Pique, Toure), Chelsea (Terry, Carvalho, Mikel), Brazil (Lucio, Juan, Gilberto) do this. Whereas in the past often the spare man (libero) started behind the two markers and moved into midfield during an attack the existing psuedo-liberos (toure, mikel, gilberto) starting position is in midfield and he moves into the central defence when his team is attacking. If you look at players positions during a game you will probably find that a lot of fullbacks are, on average, higher up the pitch that the defensive midfielder. The difference now is that the fullbacks are not on their own attacking the wings and tend to have an inside forward or a winger ahead of them whereas in the past two men would be up front and the wing back would be unsupported and could therefore be nulified.
Yeah, this is 100% correct. Am planning an article on this in the next couple of weeks.
But the point, I suppose, is that it’s always a shift to a three using a midfielder, rather than lining up with three centre-backs.
Hi guys, this is my first post.
I am chilean, and we love Bielsa. I’ve always love the 3-man defense, since my team Colo Colo 1991 with Mirko Jozic on the bench. Then, the faboluos Ajax… great teams.
Chile would play 3-4-3 at the World Cup, but also a 4-2-1-3.
——————-Claudio Bravo——————————–
Gary Medel———Waldo Ponce——Gonzalo Jara(Pablo Contreras)
—————-Carlos Carmona (Claudio Maldonado)————–
–Arturo Vidal-(Mauricio Isla)———–Jean Beaseujour——–
———————–Matías Fernandez (Jorge Valdivia)——–
–Alexis Sanchez—–Humberto Suazo——Mark Gonzalez———-
VIVA CHILE!!!!! If not, Netherlands… if not, Brasil.
Ricardinho Gaúcho on March 31, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Hi guys, this is my first post.
I am chilean, and we love Bielsa. I’ve always love the 3-man defense, since my team Colo Colo 1991 with Mirko Jozic on the bench. Then, the faboluos Ajax… great teams.
Chile would play 3-4-3 at the World Cup, but also a 4-2-1-3.
——————-Claudio Bravo——————————–
Gary Medel———Waldo Ponce——Gonzalo Jara(Pablo Contreras)
—————-Carlos Carmona (Claudio Maldonado)————–
–Arturo Vidal-(Mauricio Isla)———–Jean Beaseujour——–
———————–Matías Fernandez (Jorge Valdivia)——–
–Alexis Sanchez—–Humberto Suazo——Mark Gonzalez———-
VIVA CHILE!!!!! If not, Netherlands… if not, Brasil.
Hi ZM…
as this post talks about three man defences, can you comment on feasibility of 3 man defences in following formation & (feasibility of formations as well)…!
2 central defenders (centre backs)
1 left or right back…
2 defensive midfielders….(who could drop into defense, one of them probably as the full back missing)
one false nine, creative / attacking midfielder or holding midfielder (pick as option)
2 wingers (one on each side, atleast 1 or both of them able to cut inside)
2 strikers / forwards (able to move into wings, if required)
…..
the resultant formation(s)
3-2-3-2
3-2-1-2-2 (the penultimate band of two being wingers, behind the forwards)
cheers
If you play with wingbacks you might as well play with a 4-4-2 with attacking fullbacks. On defence you still have 4 players or even 5 if you have DMC. And attacking wise your midfield grows to 6 players because of the fullbacks. Plus that Brazil team in 2002 really had a 4 man defence because Edmilson is really a DMC and Roberto Carlos and Cafu are fullbacks who attack. And Brazil doesn’t play with wingers cause of it. A real three man defence has a sweeper and no wingbacks only out and out wingers.
Well, i born and still live in brazil, but i prefer the european football, english, german and italian are my favourites… a lot of Brazilian teams play a 3-5-2(3-4-1-2) or 3-6-1 (3-2-4-1), I have some criticism with the brazilian sides…
1- The man Marking
i can’t understand, how brazilian managers continues to insist in the man marking, if that is not too effective than the zonal
2- the 3 man defense, brazilians three sides, don’t have a libero, there’s the ’sobra’, a kind of libero, that almost never moves forward. He defend into the box, deep, he’s two partners, moves to man mark the opositions Offensive Midfielders, and the sobra wait in the box, because if the ball moves there, he’s there
3- the Brazilian 4-4-2, the midfield is a kind of a box, two defensive midfielders, and two attacking midfielders, the full backs, move up front together, and the defensive midfielders, called ‘volante’, cover their spaces.. but there’s not tactical discipline, everyone moves to the attacking field when the side have the ball..
4- the pass-dribble-pass style
This style just works with talented sides, and the brazilian sides, are not too talented nowadays, if a team plays a more direct style, and try to revolutionate the tactics in brazil, tehre are a lot of media criticisms, the team play ugly football, the team do not pass, poor manager, and others, but São Paulo three brazilian champions in row, played a very direct style, like jack charlton’s Ireland 90’s side, long pass up front, Wagner run till’ the byline and cross it, to the centre forward score, or, the centre backs pass it long to the target man, he waits a partner moves and pass to him,and the player who had received the ball, plays a long shot, Santana’s Botafogo, he learned the lesson with south africa, and stopped to play pass pass pass game, long ball to Sebastián Abreu, and he does the target man move, almost the same style of são paulo, the difference between the sides, is that Santana prefer a more zonal marking system than Ramalho. it works, i think.. if brazilians use that style always, with the classic 4-4-2 zonal mark, and pressing high up, thei would be unbeatable in south america, i think tactic are more important than talent and techinique
sorry for my bad english
napoli has reached the 6th position in serie a playing with 3 defenders.
the defense was reinforced by 2 defensive midfielder ( gargano and Pazienza ). On the sides MAggio was operating on the right and he is more offensive than defensive even if he grew up as a right back defender in a callssical 4 man defense.
On the left there were many troubles in finding an appropriate man. 4 different players has played as left wing.
zuniga is even more offensive than maggio, but he is a right foot so he was adapted o nthe left. after some “shy” performances he improved a lot. his technical skills are remarkable.
Campagnaro was used a couple of times in emergency situations and provided surprisingly some good performances ( even scored at san siro against milan ) and some assists.
Aronica has the ability to keep in equilibrium the tactic shifting back to to defensive line if needed changing the defense from 3 to 4 with the right central defender ( campagnaro usually ) moving to the right side. This is a situation that occurred when maggio is really pushing on the right side and cannot come back to cover the counterattack of the opposite team.
Dossena from january had many phisical problems but in the last weeks finally recovered and played quite well, he ’s similar to maggio and will be the official left midfielder for the next season.
Than the 3 players in the offence are quagliarella hamsik and lavezzi. after many troubles in finding a correct equilibrium, it seems that an equilibrium situation is with lavezzi in the centre and quagliarella and hamsik moving around him.
However the lack of a proper bomber is still need ( Pazzini would be perfect ) as Denis failed in this role ( 5 gol in 22 caps ).
summurizing napoli 3 4 2 1 has in the sides game his natural flow! with a proper bomber napoli could improve next season and maybe fighting more consistently for a champions league position!
Napoli next year
———–De Sanctis———-
Campagnaro—-P.Cannavaro —- New Lefty defender
Maggio—-Gargano— New Center midfielder ( Palombo?)—– Dossena
———Quagliarella/Lavezzi/Hamsik——- 2 of these 3,they can even rotate with the FW
———–NEW BOMBER ( Pazzini?Gilardino?Maxi Lopez? )—-
Fantastic article like always. I am under the impression that 3-4-1-2 can be successfully used against 4-4-2. But what happens if the opposition’s full backs are going up and down overlaping? Would this be a big problem? What would you suggest if this is the case
Thanks
[...] http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/ [...]
Thanks. My question though is not answered. Is it wise to use this against a team who has attacking fullbacks?
I’ve generally been quite dismissive of 3 man defences but reading through much of this discussion has been interesting
I’m not sure Arsenal need to be messing around with their defence too much but it strikes me that, given the amount of versatile, quick defenders they have, it might interesting to see them give it a go
Vermaelen, Sagna, Clichy, Song, Djourou, Eboue and Gallas, if he stays, all fit this description
I haven’t really thought through all the various permutations that they could put in place further up field but they have some versatile players in midfield and attack as well
I was trying to be tactful to our Portuguese friend McStay! One of the great things about ZM is that it’s not “that sort” of board…
I prefer not to comment too much on that, especially because even being portuguese, I am not a fan of Porto and I am especially no fan of such actions by Mourinho’s teams. In any case maybe that’s a possible topic for discussion for ZM, considering that gamesmanship became very much a tactic nowadays. And widely practised by british, by the way.
@Both
Very true McStay, not the right kind of place
But I agree with Joao that gamesmanship is not entirely absent from the British Isles.
Kyle Lafferty being a prime example up North, but the likes of Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney also have a lot to answer for..
Gerrard is the biggest diver in the Premiership, surely. The British media ignored it for a long time but it’s just become TOO blatant to overlook recently…
The English players tend to avoid criticism from the UK press because they hold grudges and no paper wants to alienate them in a World Cup year. The John Terry rumours, for example, were doing the rounds in the press room for months before NOTW finally realised that if they didn’t break it, someone else would. As a foreign journalist, I have no such worries about access to the England camp, so I try and mention it as much as I would with any other player. Mind you, you should the emails I get. Another reason why journalists might let him off a bit…
I still think Eboue is the worst diver in the league, but with Gerrard it stings the soul more because he shouldn’t be that type of player. His dive against Andorra was one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever seen, on so many levels.
The distinction is that Eboue is the funniest diver in the league to watch and the easiest to tell when he’s diving. Gerrard is a marginally better simulator (he mostly avoids the Eboue spread-eagle) but does it more often and in more egregious circumstances.
These emails wouldn’t be about Mrs Gerrard and her love of Shrove Tuesday would they?
Oops, sorry Dunc, I put your answer in the wrong box. It’s up there and it starts ‘hur hur hur’
I am ashamed of my technical idiocy.
Ah, bless those Liverpudlians, bless them.